Is There An Unwritten Rule Against Using A Database

According to SCOTUS, it probably is.

 please tell me then, concerning the historic match between Kasparov vs Deep Blue would the database, "Deep Blue" be considered a person?  do think im the USA Supreme Court? what's your answer to your own question?

The ludicrous "what is and is not a person" discussion aside, Deep Blue was not a database -- it utilized a database, yes, but it was an engine.

Only persons are persons (notwithstanding the debate around when this quality emerges).

Oh, and corporations. 

I think the "person" test is a red-herring.  I believe what people are trying to get at is "outside assistance of any kind during the game" -- indeed, this is exactly what is prohibited in live chess.

Here is fundamentally the reason it is not prohibited in correspondence:

An active correspondence player here likely has numerous concurrent games on the go all at different stages.  Some in the opening, some in the middle-game and some in the endgame.

Given that they'd likely always have a game in the endgame should they be forever prohibited from studying endgame technique in case it could be applied to one of their games and considered outside assistance?

Same applies for openings, should they be prohibited from studying any openings that they are currently playing?  How big a hindrance would this be for games that can last months and when you're trying to build and strengthen an opening repertoire.  You can only play or study any given opening at a time -- never both?  It's ludicrous to expect this of people given the duration and concurrency of these games.

TheGrobe...that was an outstanding explanation in post #285!

As a point of honor, you shouldn't get other players to suggest moves in specific positions during your games, irrespective of whether the player is a lifeform, an automaton, or something in between. This applies for both OTB and correspondence chess. If you have any honor whatsoever, this will be obvious to you; if not, no amount of rules will protect you from your bad character.

Other than that matter of honor, in correspondence chess, there is no other prohibition or limitation, period, unless EXPLICITLY stated in the rules of the event/group in/with which you are playing.

I always go back to the same old question though, and no one has ever answered it in any reasonable way:

Who cares if your opponent is getting help? Let's just assume that your opponent plays the best move, on each and every single move. ... So what???

If your complaint is that your rating will go down, well it should, because it accurately reflects the fact that you lost. Over time, you'll win more games against others whom you can beat, and then your rating will find its proper level. A rating is not a direct measure of playing ability, it's a measure of relative results. Meanwhile, your opponent's rating is rising, and will be beyond your level of play so you'll not have to play him again, right?

If your complaint is that it seems unsporting, then you're really contradicting yourself. The complaint implies you only want to play opponents that you can defeat, and that's pretty unsporting. So in this case we have two players exhibiting poor sportsmanship.

If you simply like to think that you will have a chance of winning - or at least, not losing - well, you do. Just play as well as possible.

In other words, as far as I can tell, outside of the realm of high stakes professional chess tournaments, no one has any great cause for complaint that their opponent is getting help.

In my own case, please, get help against me. I don't care. I want to play the strongest opponents that will take the time to play me, and if you want to weasel out of playing a game against me and get someone or something else to do it for you, I've actually already won the real battle, so, whatever.

Unless you are playing for money or titles, or you have a fundamental misunderstanding of ratings and what they measure, I see no reason to obsess about cheating as much as this site and its membership does.

What's the difference between a database and someone's memory? I was accused of cheating once in a tournament on this site because I spent all of 30 seconds checkmating my opponent after he horribly misplayed the opening; I need no help to checkmate you quickly when you step out of book in a sharp opening that I know well, and then you ignore basic chess principles while doing so.

If databases aren't allowed, but I have an idetic memory, am I restricted from using my brain during a game? Seriously, stop with the cheating concerns; play the game, and if you get beaten by someone, be thankful, and learn from your loss. Unless someone makes an illegal move to win, just be thankful when you get to play an opponent that outclasses you.

"Talent".

What Chess.com calls "online" is really nothing more than correspondence chess over the Internet, with a nice interface.

If I understand your question correctly, the answer is that any amount of "wood-pushing analysis" and note taking is allowed in Chess.com's "online" chess, but not at all in "live".

This was actually a point of contention in the early OTB computer vs human games. Computers DO access the databases for openings and humans are prohibited.

Do you mean idiotic or eidetic or a melding of the two?

It was even an accusation levied against Deep Blue.  The claim was that the engine had human assistance.

Kasparov said specifically that at least one of the moves of Deep Blue was human, that it looked like Karpov, that he was not saying that they had Karpov, but it could have been another GM.

He was saying that Deep Blue received the move during the game.

Kasparov has never been considered a gracious loser! His infamous touch-rule violation with Judit Polgar and his draw with the 13-year old (I think he was 13) Magnus Carlsen spring to mind.

Well played, I clearly meant eidetic.

I was never arrested for all the murders I committed, therefore they were legal.

In case this doesn't make obvious enough to you, what we are blaming you for is not having opinions but your lack of supporting arguments to convince the audience, and also somewhat poor ways of expressing them (but it's a minor point).

EDIT: I am taking no stance about whether your posts respected the ToS - I was just pointing out lousy reasoning, which can still yield correct conclusions.

Consider the possibility that you are reversing cause and consequence.

I have no personal issue with you. I simply thought that your essay was poorly written and that the topic and your approach to it were sophomoric and mundane.  I have already been quite specific in my critique of both your writing skills and your approach to the topic. You took it as a personal attack, which it was not. It was feedback, which you asked for.

Also, they changed the ToS a few months ago, as was pointed out. You are now allowed to post such drivel in "off-topic". I conceded that point.

If you wrote better, more people might respond.

One more thing if a player has a database of 'Chess engine games' is it fair that the player is using a database?

What if the player starts to use a personal database of random positions as well?

Is it fair at all?

Yes, it is within the rules.